K
Kei
Guest
What if I told you the world began about 18 days from now?
- Status
M
MLowe75
Guest
Lawfully? I’m not sure I am making myself clear. The job of an apologist
is to defend the faith. That’s it. If the age of the earth isn’t in a
dogma of the Catholic Faith, it shouldn’t be defended - other than
defending all Catholics’ right to have their own opinion.
is to defend the faith. That’s it. If the age of the earth isn’t in a
dogma of the Catholic Faith, it shouldn’t be defended - other than
defending all Catholics’ right to have their own opinion.
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
What models are you referring to, exactly? And yes, the scientific
community in America is fully committed to Darwinism, to the extent that
teachers and professors are fired for simply showing some of the flaws in
Darwinism. You might be surprised to learn that in other countries,
Darwinism does not hold sway.
Can I ask you a very simple question? Which rocks of our planet have been
dated to 4.5 billion years, and what method was used?
community in America is fully committed to Darwinism, to the extent that
teachers and professors are fired for simply showing some of the flaws in
Darwinism. You might be surprised to learn that in other countries,
Darwinism does not hold sway.
Can I ask you a very simple question? Which rocks of our planet have been
dated to 4.5 billion years, and what method was used?
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
Genesis 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and
breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
I don’t know of any church fathers or Catholic theologians who think this
means God found some already-living hominid and gave him a soul. It seems
to strongly suggest that life itself was given - hence the phrase “breath
of life.”
But let’s say your theory is correct. At what point in the Bible do we
read of these other near-human hominids? Certainly Adam and Eve must have
been two out of millions if not billions - Where did they all go?
Also, the Bible doesn’t say Eve was made in the same way. She was taken
from one of his ribs. What does your theory suggest?
Also, if Adam’s progeny (or Adam himself at one point) procreated with some
of these ‘near-humans’, what do you make of those children? Did they have
souls? Were they affected by original sin? Because according to your
view, Adam was not physically any different than his hominid peers when God
chose to give him a soul.
And why exactly did these near humans die out? Surely they were just as
capable as, say, chimpanzees. Why do we not see the progeny of these near
hominids today?
Or do you assert that today there are near-humans walking around without
souls?
breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
I don’t know of any church fathers or Catholic theologians who think this
means God found some already-living hominid and gave him a soul. It seems
to strongly suggest that life itself was given - hence the phrase “breath
of life.”
But let’s say your theory is correct. At what point in the Bible do we
read of these other near-human hominids? Certainly Adam and Eve must have
been two out of millions if not billions - Where did they all go?
Also, the Bible doesn’t say Eve was made in the same way. She was taken
from one of his ribs. What does your theory suggest?
Also, if Adam’s progeny (or Adam himself at one point) procreated with some
of these ‘near-humans’, what do you make of those children? Did they have
souls? Were they affected by original sin? Because according to your
view, Adam was not physically any different than his hominid peers when God
chose to give him a soul.
And why exactly did these near humans die out? Surely they were just as
capable as, say, chimpanzees. Why do we not see the progeny of these near
hominids today?
Or do you assert that today there are near-humans walking around without
souls?
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
Michael,
You have presented some fierce criticism in terms of tone at least. If you
will permit me, I wonder if you could give your position on the following
topics. Perhaps you can offer just a sentence or two on these subjects:
Homosexuality
Abortion
Women priests
Divorce
Contraception
Since you are very confident in your beliefs and not afraid to call a spade
a spade, please be brutally honest on these subjects for us. I hope that
you will surprise.
You have presented some fierce criticism in terms of tone at least. If you
will permit me, I wonder if you could give your position on the following
topics. Perhaps you can offer just a sentence or two on these subjects:
Homosexuality
Abortion
Women priests
Divorce
Contraception
Since you are very confident in your beliefs and not afraid to call a spade
a spade, please be brutally honest on these subjects for us. I hope that
you will surprise.
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
Homosexual sex is a sin and marriage should always be between one man and one woman.
Abortion is a sin against the commandment not to murder and an intrinsic evil.
Women Priests are not ever possible. Not open for debate.
Divorce is a grave evil and should be avoided at all costs.
Contraception is sinful and foments adultery and fornication.
My beliefs on all these things are all informed by and aligned to the Holy Catholic Church, She who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
M
MLowe75
Guest
Michael,
I hate to break this to you, but the vast majority of those who vehemently
support evolution are rabid atheists. Richard Dawkins finds it laughable
that people of faith embrace evolution, because it is an excellent excuse
to doubt scripture, doubt miracles, and doubt the existence of God, or at
least His concern with us. How much do you actually know about evolution?
Do you not know how it has operated to marginalize faith since its
inception?
I’m a mechanical engineer. I do stress analysis of steel and aluminum
structures using hand calculations and finite element analysis. A lot of
the formulas I use were developed analytically by mathematical geniuses
like Euler, or they were derived using empirical methods. For example, we
know the ultimate strength of ASTM A36 steel because we have done
experiments that break it at an average stress value. And I work in the
aerospace industry by the way, so your ‘sky demon’ analogy is amusing.
As far as I know, you cannot do a math problem to solve the age of the
earth. You can solve a first order differential equation to set up a math
problem based on an assumed rate of decay for things like uranium or
carbon-14. But you can’t do an experiment to see if you’re right. You
can’t observe a rock for 2 billions years to see if your estimate was
correct. So the confidence with which a geologist asserts a rock is a
certain age, say 2 billion years old (give or take a million), cannot
possibly be of the same degree that a materials scientist uses when he says
ASTM A36 will fail at 58 ksi.
I hate to break this to you, but the vast majority of those who vehemently
support evolution are rabid atheists. Richard Dawkins finds it laughable
that people of faith embrace evolution, because it is an excellent excuse
to doubt scripture, doubt miracles, and doubt the existence of God, or at
least His concern with us. How much do you actually know about evolution?
Do you not know how it has operated to marginalize faith since its
inception?
I’m a mechanical engineer. I do stress analysis of steel and aluminum
structures using hand calculations and finite element analysis. A lot of
the formulas I use were developed analytically by mathematical geniuses
like Euler, or they were derived using empirical methods. For example, we
know the ultimate strength of ASTM A36 steel because we have done
experiments that break it at an average stress value. And I work in the
aerospace industry by the way, so your ‘sky demon’ analogy is amusing.
As far as I know, you cannot do a math problem to solve the age of the
earth. You can solve a first order differential equation to set up a math
problem based on an assumed rate of decay for things like uranium or
carbon-14. But you can’t do an experiment to see if you’re right. You
can’t observe a rock for 2 billions years to see if your estimate was
correct. So the confidence with which a geologist asserts a rock is a
certain age, say 2 billion years old (give or take a million), cannot
possibly be of the same degree that a materials scientist uses when he says
ASTM A36 will fail at 58 ksi.
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
No, I think the age of the earth is based on radiometric dating, which is
within the realm of geology. Genetics and biology deal with living things
half of those whose fields have concluded that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old please?
within the realm of geology. Genetics and biology deal with living things
- once-living things are dated using Carbon-14, which can only date to 20
thousand years.
half of those whose fields have concluded that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old please?
Last edited:
M
MLowe75
Guest
Excellent! I am of the same mind.
Now, where do you think the age of the earth ranks against these topics,
from the view of the Holy Catholic Church.
Does it come first? Second? I hope it is further down the list, because
it must mean that the vehemence you have so clearly showed on this
peripheral topic must be doubled or tripled when it comes to these other
topics.
Tell me, when you stomp on the views held by your brothers and sisters in
Christ, views which are not sinful as you admit, does this help hone your
skills of mockery and derision to the point that even archangels themselves
Now, where do you think the age of the earth ranks against these topics,
from the view of the Holy Catholic Church.
Does it come first? Second? I hope it is further down the list, because
it must mean that the vehemence you have so clearly showed on this
peripheral topic must be doubled or tripled when it comes to these other
topics.
Tell me, when you stomp on the views held by your brothers and sisters in
Christ, views which are not sinful as you admit, does this help hone your
skills of mockery and derision to the point that even archangels themselves
- angels who restrained railing against Satan himself - are aglow with
esteem?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is either the genetic fallacy or an ad hominem fallacy. Take your pick.
While it is true that many atheists support evolution, so do many believers. So this is an irrelevant fact.
It is always amusing when someone who is an expert in one field tries to leverage his expertise in saying what is or is not possible in some other field.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You mean historical theologians, right? Not current theologians? Because I am quite sure there are current Catholic theologians who admit of the possibility that God did exactly that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s right. And it’s not. Which Catholic apologists do you think are defending evolution as dogma?
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
No credible theologian would make that claim.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You’re not going to define “credible” as only those who would not make that claim, are you? Because if you do, that is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If you don’t, but just allow any Catholic Priest, I’m sure I can find some.LeafByNiggle:
No credible theologian would make that claim.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Can you find any credible scientist who believes in YEC?
It seems to me there is a great deal of hypocrisy on one side. They complain that YEC is said to be “Church teaching” yet they claim Old Earth is Church teaching. They complain that YEC is “more Catholic than the Pope” yet they accuse YEC of engaging in the mortal sin of scandal. They complain that incredible claims like Adam was a monkey before he was given a soul are seen as incredible, yet they themselves consider YEC to be itself incredible.
For all the frothy-mouthed insults and self-important scorn coming from the Evolutionists on this thread, one would think they’d provided more than mere assertions and fallacies… But one would be, sadly, mistaken.
It seems to me there is a great deal of hypocrisy on one side. They complain that YEC is said to be “Church teaching” yet they claim Old Earth is Church teaching. They complain that YEC is “more Catholic than the Pope” yet they accuse YEC of engaging in the mortal sin of scandal. They complain that incredible claims like Adam was a monkey before he was given a soul are seen as incredible, yet they themselves consider YEC to be itself incredible.
For all the frothy-mouthed insults and self-important scorn coming from the Evolutionists on this thread, one would think they’d provided more than mere assertions and fallacies… But one would be, sadly, mistaken.
Last edited:
L
LittleFlower
Guest
YEC is just plain weird. 
We are in a post-truth world right now, nonetheless that’s cray.
I mean the same people who harp on about tradition and whatnot in other threads, are happy to now leave behind the Catholic tradition and position on this particular topic.
Aboriginals in Australia have been here for nearly 60,000 years. As soon as you leave the European continent, the theory just falls to pieces. Australian Aboriginals have stories that tell the story of major changes to the world. One story was a major rock explosion that took place 7,000 years ago and was told for 230 generations and it is true.
Also the Torah, at least in the Jewish tradition, strongly argues against YEC. Per Jewish tradition the days were never literal days, Adam and Eve were maybe not human as we know it, and God had maybe created a different world prior to this one (noted by Bereishit/Genesis starting with B and not an A).
Let’s not forget that the bible is how God talks to us. And He wants us to understand it, and uses language that we would understand like “day”, but that doesn’t mean He means it literally.
We are in a post-truth world right now, nonetheless that’s cray.
I mean the same people who harp on about tradition and whatnot in other threads, are happy to now leave behind the Catholic tradition and position on this particular topic.
Aboriginals in Australia have been here for nearly 60,000 years. As soon as you leave the European continent, the theory just falls to pieces. Australian Aboriginals have stories that tell the story of major changes to the world. One story was a major rock explosion that took place 7,000 years ago and was told for 230 generations and it is true.
Also the Torah, at least in the Jewish tradition, strongly argues against YEC. Per Jewish tradition the days were never literal days, Adam and Eve were maybe not human as we know it, and God had maybe created a different world prior to this one (noted by Bereishit/Genesis starting with B and not an A).
Let’s not forget that the bible is how God talks to us. And He wants us to understand it, and uses language that we would understand like “day”, but that doesn’t mean He means it literally.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
And with this perfect example, I rest my case.
L
LittleFlower
Guest
You haven’t really formed a proper post there, just half quoted me.
What are you trying to say?
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
I am making the point that insofar as there is a tendency to wrongfully hijack the authority of the Church in support of a personal interpretation, it is more often seen among the evolutionists than the creationists.
L
LittleFlower
Guest
This is incorrect. Hijacking is oftentimes done by both parties—because they both go to the extreme, and refuse to engage in dialogue.
YEC is clearly refuted by Aboriginals and their stories, by science, by other Indigenous peoples, by ruins and digs of former cultures, and also religiously in text and tradition. Jesus was a Jew, their tradition refutes it and so does ours.
- Status